Access

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Description:Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.Recognized as the leading international journal in women’s studies, Signs is at the forefront of new directions in feminist scholarship. The journal publishes pathbreaking articles, review essays, comparative perspectives, and retrospectives of interdisciplinary interest addressing gender, race, culture, class, nation, and sexuality. Special issue and section topics cover a broad range of geopolitical processes, conditions, and effects; cultural and social configurations; and scholarly and theoretical developments.

The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue
available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal.
Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a
publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current
issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.
Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted.
For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year
moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.

Terms Related to the Moving Wall

Fixed walls: Journals with no new volumes being added to the archive.

Absorbed: Journals that are combined with another title.

Complete: Journals that are no longer published or that have been
combined with another title.

Abstract

Abstract In the 1980s, Margaret Atwood, Gena Corea, and other feminists envisioned dystopias in which wealthy white women’s reproduction was valued and privileged and women of color’s reproduction was devalued and exploited. In subsequent decades, feminist scholars continued to criticize the stratification of reproduction by contrasting policies that penalize poor nonwhite women’s childbearing, on the one hand, with the high‐tech fertility industry that promotes childbearing by more affluent white women, on the other. In recent years, however, companies that market race‐based biotechnologies have promised to extend the benefits of genetic research to people of color, and media promoting genetic technologies have prominently featured their images. At the same time, the important role of genetic screening that makes individual citizens responsible for ensuring good health by reducing genetic risk may support the wider incorporation of genetic technologies into the neoliberal health care system. I argue, therefore, that we need a new reproductive dystopia that accounts for the changing political context of reproduction. This article critically explores the role of race and racism in the emergence of reproductive technologies that incorporate advances in genetic science and considers the implications of including women of color in the market for reprogenetic technologies, particularly when this is done with the expectation that women will use these technologies to manage genetic risk. In investigating these issues, I hope to shed light on the critical relationship between racism, neoliberalism, and reproduction.